CloudWatch wins for AWS workloads; Azure Monitor wins for Azure workloads. The choice maps to the primary-cloud decision your organization has already made. For multi-cloud, use a third-party tool instead.
| Feature | Amazon CloudWatch | Azure Monitor |
|---|---|---|
| Primary cloud — CloudWatch wins for AWS workloads; Azure Monitor wins for Azure workloads | — | — |
| Log query expressiveness — Azure Monitor wins with KQL; CloudWatch Logs Insights is simpler but less powerful | — | — |
| SIEM integration — Azure Monitor wins with native Microsoft Sentinel on the same workspace | — | — |
| Capacity savings — Azure Monitor wins with reservations up to 36% off | — | — |
| Granular additional-usage pricing — CloudWatch wins with per-unit pricing from $0.01 | Free tier available, with additional charges starting at $0.01, $0.30, $10.50, $12.50, $182, and $5,120.00 per month depending on usage | Billing is primarily based on the volume of data ingested into Azure Monitor. Use capacity reservation tiers to save up to 36 percent on data ingestion costs as compared to pay-as-you-go pricing. Some functionalities have additional charges. |
| Feature | Amazon CloudWatch | Azure Monitor |
|---|---|---|
| Cloud Integration | ||
| Primary cloud | AWS only (native) | Azure + hybrid via Azure Arc |
| Native service integration | Zero-config for all AWS services | Zero-config for all Azure services |
| Cross-account observability | Built-in via AWS Organizations | Via Azure Management Groups |
| Hybrid / on-prem | Via CloudWatch Agent on any Linux/Windows | Via Azure Arc and Azure Monitor Agent |
| Observability Capabilities | ||
| Log query language | Logs Insights (SQL-like) | KQL (more expressive) |
| APM and tracing | ServiceLens + X-Ray (fragmented) | Application Insights (integrated) |
| Container insights | Container Insights for ECS/EKS | Container Insights for AKS |
| SIEM integration | Via third-party or AWS Security Lake | Microsoft Sentinel (same workspace, native) |
| Pricing & Access | ||
| Billing model | Per metric, per GB log, per alarm, per query | Per GB ingested + retention + alerts |
| Capacity reservations | No reservation pricing | Capacity reservations up to 36% savings |
| Access control | AWS IAM native | Azure AD native, RBAC |
| Free tier | 10 metrics, 10 alarms, 5GB logs | 5 GB/month Log Analytics, 31-day retention |
Primary cloud
Native service integration
Cross-account observability
Hybrid / on-prem
Log query language
APM and tracing
Container insights
SIEM integration
Billing model
Capacity reservations
Access control
Free tier
CloudWatch wins for AWS workloads; Azure Monitor wins for Azure workloads. The choice maps to the primary-cloud decision your organization has already made. For multi-cloud, use a third-party tool instead.
This verdict is based on general use cases. Your specific requirements, existing tech stack, and team expertise should guide your final decision.
Generally no. Running both means two separate dashboards, alerting frameworks, and bills. For meaningful multi-cloud workloads, a third-party tool (Datadog, Grafana Cloud) covering both clouds in one surface is almost always better. Native tools are excellent within their clouds but fight you across clouds.
Technically yes, but awkwardly. You can forward metrics between clouds via connectors, but the tools lose their zero-config advantage and you pay for ingestion at both ends. In practice, teams serious about multi-cloud switch to a neutral third-party tool rather than bolting connectors onto native platforms.
Azure Monitor's KQL is meaningfully more expressive than CloudWatch Logs Insights for complex queries. KQL supports joins, summaries, and advanced operators. CloudWatch Logs Insights is serviceable for simple queries and cheaper for ad-hoc exploration at low volumes.
For equivalent AWS-vs-Azure workloads, costs are within 20% of each other. Both bill primarily on log volume and retention. Azure Monitor's capacity reservations up to 36% savings can make it cheaper for predictable high-volume workloads. CloudWatch's granular pricing can make it cheaper for very sparse workloads.
Yes, Microsoft Sentinel supports AWS data sources via connectors. CloudTrail, CloudWatch Logs, GuardDuty, and S3 all have native connectors. For organizations standardized on Microsoft Sentinel as the SIEM, this can reduce the case for AWS-native security tooling even for AWS workloads.